Аннотация:The statistical techniques used by Raup and Sepkoski (1984 and 1986) to identify a 26-Myr periodicity in the biological extinction record for the past 250 Myr are reexamined, responding in detail to the criticisms of Stigler and Wagner (1987). It is argued that evaluation of a much larger set of extinction data using a time scale with 51 sampling intervals supports the finding of periodicity. In a reply by Sigler and Wagner, the preference for a 26-Myr period is attributed to a numerical quirk in the Harland et al. (1982) time scale, in which the subinterval boundaries are not linear interpolations between the stage boundaries but have 25-Myr periodicity. It is stressed that the results of the stringent statistical tests imposed do not disprove periodicity but rather indicate that the evidence and analyses presented so far are inadequate.
